President Obama: ‘If You’ve Got a Business — You Didn’t Build That. Somebody Else Made That

As much as I dislike Obama, I do have to say that I've heard the same spiel before, about how you can't open a business unless someone built the road for people to drive to your business, and how the telephone lines didn't just magically appear for your business to use...

That in a sense, we are all connected, we all use the technology, the hard work and the sweat of people before us.

I think that's what he was trying to say, no matter how badly flubbed it was.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by petrus4

 

What I wonder, though, is assuming you're correct in everything you say, what does that mean? Do successful people owe their success to government? Should they be required to turn over their earnings above a certain amount to government? Or should we all just send the White House a thank you card once a year?

There are areas of the economy where unregulated Capitalism is appropriate, as far as I'm concerned; and there are areas where it is not. The Internet was originally a nationalised resource, and it should have remained one.

Capitalists will argue that the ability of the individual to become wealthy entirely from his own initiative is being lost. I on the other hand, have observed from direct experience, that in certain cases, collective control of a given resource, if it is required for the wellbeing of the entire collective in question, is far more appropriate. Capitalism does not recognise the concept of need; it recognises the concept of demand, which is something very different, and is actually more oriented towards the gratification of wants rather than actual needs.

There are a lot of people on this forum, who make reflexive statements, purely from the basis of entirely hypothetical, or unverified mind control. They thus have no real knowledge of the subject being discussed.

Obama is also correct more generally, when he implies that the myth of the entirely self-made individual is just that; a myth. A person living in complete isolation from other human beings, would have no ability whatsoever to make money. Money is made, at its' most basic level, on the basis of trade, which in turn automatically implies the existence of more than one party.

Before you assume that I am unwilling to hear anyone who disagrees with me, understand that such is not universally the case. I am unwilling to hear any opinion which exists on an entirely unverified basis; and that is most people's.

Although, given that, it may surprise you that I am not an atheist, as a computer programmer, I am constantly dealing with situations in which something is either verifiably correct, or it is not. If a given assertion I make is correct, the program will run, and the desired objective will be obtained. If it is not, it won't.

My religious belief is actually the same. I have a book on Raja Yoga by Swami Vivekananda, who was the Hindu speaker who lectured to Nikola Tesla, among others, before Tesla's death. Vivekananda was adamant that nobody should believe a word he said, unless it could be verified by their own direct experience.

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
-- Mark Twain.

reply to post by petrus4

Dear petrus4,

I'm so sorry that we're having these misunderstandings, but I'm glad they're the basis of discussion rather than angry shouting. Thank you for your kindness, patience, and thoroughness.

Before you assume that I am unwilling to hear anyone who disagrees with me, understand that such is not universally the case. I am unwilling to hear any opinion which exists on an entirely unverified basis; and that is most people's.

This assumption was based on my misunderstanding of your post:

Any attempt to refute the above point in this thread will be recognised for what it is; Capitalist mind control, and ignored.

The rest of your post I find entirely unobjectionable in content. Even the Twain quote. We are two minds with but a single thought. And, if it is important, I had no idea of your religion, or indeed any religion at all. Never entered my head.

Oh, I did say "misunderstandings," plural, didn't I? The part of my post that you quoted wasasking a serious question which I had hoped would be answered:

What I wonder, though, is assuming you're correct in everything you say, what does that mean? Do successful people owe their success to government? Should they be required to turn over their earnings above a certain amount to government?

If they owe it to the government and others, should they be required to pay? If so, what portion of their earnings should be taken?

I'm sorry to be giving your thoughtful post such short shrift, but, as I said, I agree with you.

One last thing?

If a given assertion I make is correct, the program will run, and the desired objective will be obtained. If it is not, it won't.

If the desired objective is a bad one, be happy that your assertion is wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by enthuziazm
It really irritates me when I hear people ranting about how "self made" America is and should be. While I agree that people need to be held accountable for their work ethic and self-interests, the government has it's place for those that no matter how hard they work, or how hard they try, can never seem to live a decent life. The point of forming a nation, such as the United States gaining liberty after the civil war

I hope to God you meant the liberty was gained after the REVOLUTIONARY war. I'm hoping that at least.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

That's not AT ALL what he was talking about.

Did you even read the damn quote???

He's saying that people like CEO's, the wealthy, etc.

I seriously didn't hear him say anything like this. Are you just making this up?

reply to post by sensibleSenseless


wow Governments do not work for a profit motive?... Are you sure about that?... Are you claiming that governments do not make investments, they do not sell weapons and other infraestructure, they do not make any money at all, and they do not look for the cheapest building materials they can get their hands on to minimize their costs?...

In what world have you been living?...

Let me give you an example. The first job I ever got when I came to the U.S. was to work in construction. I became a Plasterer assistant and even became a Plasterer working with a lot of different people. Because of this job I came to know and understand why it took so long most of the time for government construction workers to build, or renovate streets... It wasn't because of the traffic, it wasn't because of a lack of workers, but rather because the jobs would be slowed down on purpose...

It was done because such jobs many times are scarce, and people would be without jobs if they finished quickly the projects given to them, so the work crew would work slow almost until another project came along...

BTW, ALL GOVERNMENTS make a profit...

Show me a government that does not sell any sort of products/items/services to other governments/nations...

Originally posted by MRuss
As much as I dislike Obama, I do have to say that I've heard the same spiel before, about how you can't open a business unless someone built the road for people to drive to your business, and how the telephone lines didn't just magically appear for your business to use...

That in a sense, we are all connected, we all use the technology, the hard work and the sweat of people before us.

I think that's what he was trying to say, no matter how badly flubbed it was.

That's not what he said... he said that businesses DO NOT BELONG to the "business owners", but to others...

Businesses are a type of private property, and as such Obama is claiming that private property does not belong to those who own and build the business, took the loans, and all the risks, and worked over time making sacrifices for their business to work... Naa, instead it belongs to others... That's what he is implying/saying.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by petrus4

 

This assumption was based on my misunderstanding of your post: Any attempt to refute the above point in this thread will be recognised for what it is; Capitalist mind control, and ignored.

This statement was made for two reasons:-

a] I was speaking in a certain degree of anger at the time. While I make no attempt at abdicating personal responsibility for it, I am (or at least can be) a passionate personality, and this (at least relating to the Internet) is a subject of high emotional significance to me.

b] I have been severely attacked with regards to this subject by certain advocates of Capitalism in the past, and was thus pre-emptively expecting similar conflict again. This was probably a mistake on my part.

The rest of your post I find entirely unobjectionable in content. Even the Twain quote. We are two minds with but a single thought. And, if it is important, I had no idea of your religion, or indeed any religion at all. Never entered my head.

My religion is only relevant in a single aspect; and that was to give an example of the point, that I only accept any idea if I am capable of verifying it by direct experience. I made this point because, in my experience, atheists tend to believe that they are alone in being able to make such a claim; and that therefore, it would normally be concluded that it is not possible to be both scientifically minded, and a theist.

Oh, I did say "misunderstandings," plural, didn't I? The part of my post that you quoted was asking a serious question which I had hoped would be answered: What I wonder, though, is assuming you're correct in everything you say, what does that mean? Do successful people owe their success to government? Should they be required to turn over their earnings above a certain amount to government?

I apologise, but the reason why I neglected to directly answer this, in because in truth I have no real answer. I do not know exactly the degree to which the government (or the collective in general, for that matter) should be acknowledged for one's own success. I will, however, attempt to answer by again drawing another analogy from my own experience.

In my work at times as a programmer, and as a vicarious engineer in the computer game Minecraft, I will regularly come across innovations of various kinds, which have been contributed by other users. Sometimes, as has been the case with one example recently, these contributions serve to illustrate certain principles, or how to accomplish certain tasks, an understanding of which, I likely would have been completely unable to come to on my own.

So while I will tend to take such innovations and integrate them into my own further work, I also am more than willing to acknowledge, that my own work is but an incremental advancement, of a collection of contributions that have been made by numerous others.

Another analogy I would make here, is the childhood game of pass the parcel, except in reverse. In that game, each child would remove a layer of wrapping paper from a parcel, and the child who unwrapped the last layer, won whatever was inside. In this case, however, a layer of wrapping paper is added by at least some (and ideally all) of the people who the parcel is passed to; and everyone in the collective benefits as a result.

This is the ethos that my (admittedly limited, comparitively speaking) background in computer science has given me; and I think it integrates the most positive elements of both the individualist and collectivist schools of thought. The individual makes his or her contribution, but again, the collective benefits.

One last thing? - If a given assertion I make is correct, the program will run, and the desired objective will be obtained. If it is not, it won't. If the desired objective is a bad one, be happy that your assertion is wrong.

Agreed. I watched the fourth Terminator film again the other night. My love of machines not withstanding, that series provides a valuable warning, which should not be overlooked.

reply to post by petrus4

Dear petrus4,

This may be off-topic and personal, but I wanted it to be public. Thanks to your patience and thoroughness we have come to an understanding. I am really pleased with your work here, I think you've set an example that most posters would benefit by following.

My respect for you has gone up enormously. This has been a real pleasure.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by beezzer

 

Well there are still dirt(proletariat) roads where I grew up. In the summertime, they spread oil on them to keep the dust down.

I think I'll call Obama and let him know that they are PO'ed about it. If they had those bourgeoisie asphalt roads there, they could be bidnessmens too.

edit on 17-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

And who makes the oil????

The people who think that roads create businesses are the same ones that think expensive golf clubs make great golfers.

I can tell you from personal experience that you remain a bad golfer no matter what type of club you have

Like with most of Barry O's arguments, appeals, pleas, etc - this one is weak. Every time the man is off teleprompter he turns into Joe Biden.

Originally posted by MRuss
As much as I dislike Obama, I do have to say that I've heard the same spiel before, about how you can't open a business unless someone built the road for people to drive to your business, and how the telephone lines didn't just magically appear for your business to use...

That in a sense, we are all connected, we all use the technology, the hard work and the sweat of people before us.

I think that's what he was trying to say, no matter how badly flubbed it was.

Obama has it upside down and backwards.

The government didn't build those roads. THE United States Taxpayers BUILT THOSE ROADS !

Those are OUR roads. WE paid for them.

As soon as we send our tax dollars to Washington D.C. the socialists suddenly declare

that it's THEIR money! It's not! That's our money!!!

The Obama Socialist Rant is being called the Roanoak Gaffe.

It just cost Obama the election. Obama slipped up while off the teleprompter.

He told us the truth. He thinks capitalism is the enemy.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hi ElectricUniverse,

In Canada there are such things as crown corporations which are funded and owned by government where they attempt to make profit - ie a greater amount of income than the expenses they pay. The US government has similar activities - such as weapons sales. On the other hand, there isn't always a shareholder who takes home profits - for example the province of Ontario's lottery system, then uses the profits to fund other government initiatives.

This is not the general rule in all government departments - but it is a part of some government initiatives - one which I didn't cover, so I stand corrected. When for instance, the government takes taxes for a school system, the government is not attempting to profit from it - something I was trying to put emphasis on. (There are probably exceptions to everything I've written all over the place - I have neither the time or resources to devoting to discovering absolutely everything - so your input is quite appreciated.)

My point is that neither government, nor private institutions are not necessarily trying to be perfect - though they may go out of their way to profusely state such intentions. They work with the idea of making money, and both can and do cheat people often enough.

Again, to re-iterate, this is not to say that there aren't people who deal fairly in this world or that some of the endeavours by those who cheat are beneficial to people - which is why absolutely everything hasn't instantaneously collapsed.

reply to post by tamusan


All tax paying citizens have worked and spent and contributed to the building of this country, all. Do we not all use it as well? Should some not be allowed or have a restricted access based on level of intelligence or success?

Does the person who pays no Federal income tax deserve to use it less? No, of course not. Does the person on food stamps or disability not enjoy the laws and regulations written to ease their access? And the cost to implement them? Paid for not by a benevolent dictator but by the tax paying masses moving in a wave of good will, even if contrived or compromised.

Then why does the person who has somehow benefited more not have the same use or is held to some other standard defined by the worse possible scenario; human morality? And due to the very progressive nature of our tax code, it can be shown they already do pay a larger amount to fund the infrastructure. And if they have a successful business, they pay additional taxes on top of that.

We are all in this together but yet we are put at odds to be in "it" at varying degrees of Liberty based on the amount of our property we have acquired? It is because of success we can afford more. It is because of the free market and capitalism that we have gone further and grown higher than any know system before, during and after the demise that is developing.

We said and fought and died to rid ourselves of the King. Why do we seek now to get back into the system of serfdom and its cause?

Originally posted by LLatPoH
reply to post by tamusan

 

All tax paying citizens have worked and spent and contributed to the building of this country, all. Do we not all use it as well? Should some not be allowed or have a restricted access based on level of intelligence or success?

Does the person who pays no Federal income tax deserve to use it less? No, of course not. Does the person on food stamps or disability not enjoy the laws and regulations written to ease their access? And the cost to implement them? Paid for not by a benevolent dictator but by the tax paying masses moving in a wave of good will, even if contrived or compromised.

Then why does the person who has somehow benefited more not have the same use or is held to some other standard defined by the worse possible scenario; human morality? And due to the very progressive nature of our tax code, it can be shown they already do pay a larger amount to fund the infrastructure. And if they have a successful business, they pay additional taxes on top of that.

We are all in this together but yet we are put at odds to be in "it" at varying degrees of Liberty based on the amount of our property we have acquired? It is because of success we can afford more. It is because of the free market and capitalism that we have gone further and grown higher than any know system before, during and after the demise that is developing.

We said and fought and died to rid ourselves of the King. Why do we seek now to get back into the system of serfdom and its cause?

Free Market Capitalism has made the USA immune to communism.

American Exceptionalism has given us strength and power.

Obama is not alone. Elisabeth Warren has a socialist rant of her own.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by sensibleSenseless

 

wow Governments do not work for a profit motive?... Are you sure about that?... Are you claiming that governments do not make investments, they do not sell weapons and other infraestructure, they do not make any money at all, and they do not look for the cheapest building materials they can get their hands on to minimize their costs?...

In what world have you been living?...

Let me give you an example. The first job I ever got when I came to the U.S. was to work in construction. I became a Plasterer assistant and even became a Plasterer working with a lot of different people. Because of this job I came to know and understand why it took so long most of the time for government construction workers to build, or renovate streets... It wasn't because of the traffic, it wasn't because of a lack of workers, but rather because the jobs would be slowed down on purpose...

It was done because such jobs many times are scarce, and people would be without jobs if they finished quickly the projects given to them, so the work crew would work slow almost until another project came along...

BTW, ALL GOVERNMENTS make a profit...

Show me a government that does not sell any sort of products/items/services to other governments/nations...

edit on 17-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

I would like to piggy back off if this because most of those government workers were probably in unions. I had to take a job in a grocery store a few years ago to make ends meet. I was FORCED to join the union. That union apparently existed for two reasons - #1, to make money for it's staff, and #2, so if you get fired for being a dunce they will make sure you get your job back at least once. And I saw people fired multiple times simply get transferred to other locations.

Working in that environment ensured that you A, would only work as hard as the guy next to you because there is absolutely ZERO incentive to do otherwise, B. not share any idea that you wouldn't get recognized for anyway, and C. wish you weren't in that union because if you busted your butt you could be moved ahead of the guy that's been there for 20 years - even though he does zero work gets priority treatment over you because you are in the same union(but he has seniority). One thing for sure - union does not equal team. People get ridiculous preferential treatment for having been hired two weeks before the guy behind him.

MODS please don't make this off-topic. I think it's very pertinent to the overall discussion on Obama and his vision and the comments he made.

Originally posted by LLatPoH


We said and fought and died to rid ourselves of the King. Why do we seek now to get back into the system of serfdom and its cause?

Because in the eyes of the Progressive Liberals, it's just not fair.

reply to post by stanguilles7
Lets say no one decided to take a risk and start there own buissness. Now there are no jobs. Where is the tax money coming from? We all have choises in life you either work for someone or you can work for yourself. Society doesnt keep you down you keep your own self down.Without the risk takers there would be nothing. One thing kool aid drinkers need to remember is the government works for me. As soon as a person decides to take the risk on there own, they did it on there own. That is all I have to say about that.

Money is a means by which people share the countries' resources.

If there is enough in circulation, taking your chances makes sense.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Even if I agreed with his statement, which I don't, if the government is who we should be thankful to for our infrastructure why the hell won't they fix it and stop spending our #ing taxes on # we don't need. We need to refurbish or replace our infrastructure, but how often does congress address that issue? So # Obama, stupid bastard needs to get his head out of his ass and realize that he's putting his foot in his mouth by even mentioning infrastructure and taxes in the same paragraph.

Originally posted by LLatPoH
reply to post by tamusan

 

All tax paying citizens have worked and spent and contributed to the building of this country, all. Do we not all use it as well? Should some not be allowed or have a restricted access based on level of intelligence or success?

Does the person who pays no Federal income tax deserve to use it less? No, of course not. Does the person on food stamps or disability not enjoy the laws and regulations written to ease their access? And the cost to implement them? Paid for not by a benevolent dictator but by the tax paying masses moving in a wave of good will, even if contrived or compromised.

Then why does the person who has somehow benefited more not have the same use or is held to some other standard defined by the worse possible scenario; human morality? And due to the very progressive nature of our tax code, it can be shown they already do pay a larger amount to fund the infrastructure. And if they have a successful business, they pay additional taxes on top of that.

We are all in this together but yet we are put at odds to be in "it" at varying degrees of Liberty based on the amount of our property we have acquired? It is because of success we can afford more. It is because of the free market and capitalism that we have gone further and grown higher than any know system before, during and after the demise that is developing.

We said and fought and died to rid ourselves of the King. Why do we seek now to get back into the system of serfdom and its cause?

Epic first post! Well said!!